Allama Iqbal - marde-momin or superman?

This
Sacred Cow series examines the impact of the most prominent “sacred
cows” among the Muslims who have been instrumental in carving
out Muslim people's destiny over the last one hundred years. I begin
Part-I
with a name most distinguished, most honored, most loved, most
quoted, and most rehearsed even today, “Sir” Dr. Allama
Muhammad Iqbal, Pakistan's national poet-laureate and intellectual
father.

The
concept of “momin” in Islam is eloquently captured by the
twentieth century poet-philosopher of Muslims from the Indian
sub-continent, “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal, also known as Allama
Iqbal (1877-1938). His chivalrous depiction of Islam's ideal person,
both man and woman, by the chauvinist term “marde-momin”
(and “marde-Mussalman”), is based on his abstraction of
“khudi”, or the philosophical “self” -- the
suppression of what Sigmund Freud had called the “ego” by
the elevation of what he had famously introduced as the “superego”
-- to become the obedient “slave” of God. In a sentence,
it is the submersion of one's own will into God's will.

That
is of course also the core Message of Islam, where the word “Islam”
itself means “complete submission to the will of Allah”.
That in turn means to implement the teachings of the Holy Qur'an in
one's life as a constitution to daily live by. Which further entails,
inter alia, to live one's life as outlined in Surah Al-Asr such that
it is not one of total loss (see http://tinyurl.com/Surah-Asr
).

Allama
Muhammad Iqbal's theistic exposition of Islam in his philosophy of
the suppression of the ego is in contrast to the atheistic nihilistic
concept of the Nietzscheian “superman”. Nietzsche's
“superman” is beyond good and evil, the ubermensch
born after killing god and becoming god himself with his sheer “will
to power”. The impact of Nietzsche's philosophy is examined in
Morality derived from the Intellect leads to Enslavement! (see
http://tinyurl.com/morality-ubermensch
)

The
strains of German pedigree in Allama Iqbal's philosophy are unhidden
despite his take being wholly theistic. It constitutes a Hegelian
Dialectic – Nietzsche expands the intellectual man's ego to
become “god”, while Iqbal deflates the ego to become the
slave of God. Their clash, as any clash of opposites, is natural and
inevitable. It is the clash between the ultimate evil man (the
superman) and the ultimate good man (the marde-momin).
Allama Muhammad Iqbal studied in Germany and was clearly affected by
many a German philosopher including both Hegel and Nietzsche. The
chauvinistic term “mard” in “marde-momin”,
its literal meaning being “male”, evidently comes from
the play on Nietzsche's “man” in “superman”
(“ubermensch” in German).

Allama
Iqbal defined “marde-momin” in his seminal poem titled
“Tulu-e-Islam” (طلوع
اسلام ).
In English it means “Renaissance of
Islam”. The poem is in his compilation Bang-e-Dara, and the
verse in which he used that specific word is:

Endeavoring
to induce “Renaissance
of Islam” among the backward Muslims is surely a
commendable cause to spend one's life in. Like the endeavor to
“reform Islam” itself, it can also be a fast ticket to
name and fame, knighthood and status.

It
is pertinent to point out the commonsense observation that when
“revolutionaries” and “reformers” are awarded
medals, titles, and knighthood by empire,
it can only mean that they work for the benefit of empire in some
way. The truth of these words is beyond doubt. It is self-evident.

It
has always bothered me that “Sir” Muhammad
Iqbal accepted the knighthood in 1922 from
the King of England, King George V, the head of state of the most
plunderous colonizing empire ruling the Indian sub-continent.
(According to some other
accounts, “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal
accepted the knighthood on January 1, 1923.) The brief biographical
sketch appearing in Government of Pakistan's official website of
Allama Iqbal, Pakistan's national poet-laureate, describes the public
relations circumstance for the awarding of Knighthood by the British
empire to the brightest scion of its Jewel in the crown which
has been parroted by virtually all “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal's hagiographic biographers
without reflection:

'Iqbal
was born in Sialkot, in the present-day
province of the Punjab in Pakistan, in 1877. He received his early
education in that city, where one of his teachers was MirHasan, an accomplished scholar who
commanded a knowledge of several Islamic languages. Mir Hasan gave
Iqbal a thorough training in the rich Islamic literary tradition. His
influence on Iqbal was formative. Many years later (1922), when the
English governor of the Punjab proposed to the British Crown that
Iqbal be knighted in acknowledgment of his literary accomplishments,
Iqbal asked that Mir Hasan also be awarded a title. To the governor’s
remark that Mir Hasan had not authored any books, Iqbal responded
that he, Iqbal, was the book Mir Hasan had produced. Mir Hasan
received the title of Shams al-’Ulama’
(“Sun of Scholars”).

...
Although his main interests were scholarly, Iqbal was not unconcerned
with the political situation of the, country and the political
fortunes of the Muslim community of India. Already in 1908, while in
England, he had been chosen as a member of the executive council of
the newly established British branch of the Indian Muslim League. In
1931 and 1932 he represented the Muslims of India in the Round Table
Conferences held in England to discuss the issue of the political
future of India. And in a 1930 lecture Iqbal suggested the creation
of a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. Iqbal died (1938)
before the creation of Pakistan (1947), but it was his teaching that
“spiritually ... has been the chief force behind the creation
of Pakistan.” He is the national poet of Pakistan.'
— http://allamaiqbal.com/person/perbrief.html

While
the British empire was making “Sir” Muhammad
Iqbal the Knight of the British Empire, the poet-philosopher at the
time was trying to awaken the Islam in Muslims to help them end their
servitude to the very same empire! Was the British empire run by
imbeciles?

Being
able to discern such matters forensically is what separates
hagiography from reality.

What
was “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal being knighted
for by the king of Britannia? To instrument
the destruction of his own British empire? Or, for “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal's brilliant doctrinal craftsmanship
as the asset of empire, one who would seed the division of the Indian
subcontinent in the already foreseeable
post-colonial era?

“Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal's two-nation advocacy was instrumental in breaking up
the Indian sub-continent. While the poet-philosopher
was being anointed “Sir” for ostensibly awakening the
Islam in Muslims within India, another Muslim empire, a ruling state
no less, the Ottoman empire, was being mercilessly dismembered and
secularized by the very same benefactors of “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal.

“Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal evidently did not seem too perturbed for that calamity
befalling the Muslim Ottoman empire or else he would have surely
declined the knighthood awarded him by their enemies. His silence,
and his acceptance of knighthood was most convenient for the British
empire which had been hell-bent upon tearing that rival Muslim empire
asunder for at least two centuries. It had finally succeeded in the
backdrop of a fictitiously contrived world
war. “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal's non-opposition to the British
empire for their grotesque dismembering of a Muslim ruling state
speaks volumes. For one thing, it legitimized the butcherous
partitioning of Muslim territories by the Western allies when even
the foremost scholar of the Muslims preaching Islam's renaissance,
graciously accepted the knighthood of the British empire in its
immediate aftermath.

The
poet-philosopher displayed no parallel angst for Islam and its
renaissance among the Turkish Muslims to prevent that rival ruling
state from being so grotesquely dismembered by the British empire.
Nor did he visibly oppose the British empire which was forcibly
secularizing the new Turkish nation-state away from its three
centuries old Islamic roots with its Western sponsored blood-drenched
transformation. “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal had accepted his
knighthood after witnessing all that mayhem upon the Ottoman Muslims.

But
the poet-philosopher displayed much soul for Islam and its
renaissance elsewhere in Asia as he strove to break up his own Indian
subcontinent which could potentially have become a new ruling state
in the post colonial era due to the vastness and integrity of its
territories and natural resources. Its violent partition
by “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal's benefactors based on his
doctrinal craftsmanship, with concomitant animosity instituted among
a people who had hitherto lived peaceably together, while leaving
them the imperial gift of a perpetual bone of contention in disputed
territory to continually refresh that animosity, certainly ensured
that the immense subcontinental region would remain beyond its true
potential and always susceptible to easy manipulation. Today, these
partitioned nations spend a bulk of their GDP and national debt on
defence – defence primarily against
each other – rather than on uplifting the lot of their common
man.

Furthermore,
the uncanny resemblance of:

“Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal'sunprecedented
demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims in the name of
religion (an outrageous demand for the separation of a common race
of people from their own birthplace not hitherto recorded in history
in the thirteen centuries of Islam's existence up to that time),

to:

the
European Zionist Jews' demand for a separate homeland in Palestine
(the territories formerly under the newly dismembered Ottoman
empire) also in the name of race and religion (again an
unprecedented and outrageous demand in the
annals of recorded history to be gratuitously awarded land to a
people not even born on that land by a third party),

and:

both
demands being so egregiously granted by
the receding British empire within less than a year of each other
under similar “revolutionary times”,

is
more than just a passing coincidence of imperial history.

In
both cases, violently partitioning, by imperial fiat, two pieces
of geography upon which they were only the colonial occupiers (India)
and war-booty custodians (Palestine) respectively, and which weren't
theirs to partition in the first place.

Both
cases respectively leading to the two largest displacements in modern
history of innocent peoples forcibly being separated from their
ancestral homes and their land, with bloodshed of the civilians
caught in the atrocious imperial partition
rivaling that during the preceding two world wars among soldiers and
non-combatants.

The
common political instruments in both cases, the Round Tables and the
United Nations, constructed by the same financial oligarchy in whose
principal's name the Balfour Declaration
was issued by the British Empire, is also not a mere coincidence. I
have forensically examined some of this history in my analysis of the
existential dilemma facing the Palestinian peoples, see Pamphlet:
How To Return to Palestine ( http://tinyurl.com/Palestine-Zahir
). The carnal linkages of the same financial
oligarchy which bankrolled the theft of Palestine, to the
establishment of the Round Tables (where the issue of the partition
of India was addressed and concluded) by Cecil Rhodes and Alfred
Milner, is well documented. Behind them was the wealth of the same
financial oligarchs as the founders of Palestine. And today, the
children of the Round Tables fashioning the contemporary
Anglo-American policies for ushering in Global Governance, are the
Council on Foreign Relations in New York, also called CFR, and the
Royal Institute of International Affairs in the UK, also called
Chatham House.

For
any honest scholar with at least some wherewithal of modern imperial
statecraft, and observing all the forces that shape international
events from “Mt. Fuji”, it is most pertinent to question
the unarticulated motivations of this knighted poet-philosopher
of Muslims whose inspirational verses are admired and rehearsed much
among the literati in many nations even
today. One way to ascertain the many strands of invisible forces
which drive motivation is to forensically examine their overt acts,
both of commission and omission. That's the
best one can do as no one can peer into the abyss of another's soul.

If
“Sir” Muhammad Iqbal knew so much about “marde-momin”
that he was preaching that delectable philosophy
to others,why did the Indian Muslim counterpart of
TheodorHerzl –
the founder of the Jewish State in Palestine – not
decline the royal knighthood as a
demonstration of his own “marde-momin-ness”?
“Sir” Muhammad Iqbal surely could have taught the
mentally colonized Indian Muslims, and of course the world's Muslims
(except for the Turks) – the raison d'être for his
lifetime of versification to help Muslims break their shackles of
servitude – a more compelling lesson by way of setting an
example himself!

Furthermore,
if “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal knew so much about the cognizance
of the “self”, why could the virtuous antagonist of
Nietzsche not straightforwardly discern
that he was himself being used as a stooge by the British empire
which was tickling his over inflated ego as
their own favorite “hakim-ul-ummat” (“physician of
the Muslim umma”) with such knighthood, and was only buying his
cooperation for the legitimacy that his
acceptance conferred upon their acts on the decapitation of the
Ottoman empire and the atrocious granting
of the Balfour Declaration to the Jews?

The
“hakim-ul-ummat” could have surely taught the Indian
Muslims, then being ruled for over 250 years with corrosive mental
colonization, what his philosophizing of “khudi” actually
meant in practice by immediately declining the knighthood handed him
by the very same oppressor of Muslims. If he had himself conviction
of any of it, his brilliant verses like the following one from his
compilation Zarb-E-Kaleem, would have been given a practical
demonstration for what sharpening the superego on the
grindstone of submission to God as the only Benefactor meant, as
opposed to sharpening the ego on empire's benefaction:

خودي
کا سر نہاں لا
الہ الا اللہ

خودي
ہے تيغ، فساں
لا الہ الا اللہ

Khudi
ka sirr-e-nihaaN La ilaha il Allah

khudi
hai tegh-e-fasaaN La ilaha il Allah

The
secret of the Self is hid, In words “No god but He alone”.

The
Self is just a dull-edged sword, “No god but He,” the
grinding stone. (Source)

Does
“Sir” Muhammad Iqbal not appear to be more and more like
Nietzsche's superman and less and less like his own
marde-momin?

The
principle definition of Nietzsche's superman is that one can
preach and enact anything upon others and one is not bound to it for
one's own self – because, one is
above others, an ubermensch, beyond good and evil, the
superman. The definition of marde-momin however entails
just the opposite, principally, that one is bound by the same
requirements and constraints as one inflicts upon another (which in
this case is being a perfectman, a momin, a slave of
Allah, and not of empire or fellow man).

To
be generous, one could aver that minimally, “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal remains an enigma, using homilies in local vernaculars
such as “shadow underneath the bright
lamp”, to perhaps apologetically explain away the unpalatable
actions of one's hero.

More
straightforwardly put however, any preacher's word is only as
good as his own character to live up to that preaching. To walk the
talk so to speak, if the talk is held with any degree of conviction.
That is principally, and unequivocally, demonstrated by the Prophet
of Islam who brought the Message of the Author of the Holy Qur'an to
mankind. If the Prophet of Islam had accepted a medal or knighthood
from any of the ruling kings and empires of his time to whom he sent
invitations to Islam, or, if his Ahlul-Bayt successors (see
http://tinyurl.com/Ahlul-Bayt-In-Quran
) had accepted knighthood from the oppressive Muslim rulers and
empires of their epoch, their brilliant exponents inducing
“Renaissance of Islam” doing the same would most
assuredly be quite aboveboard.

Knighthood
and its title “Sir” is always, but always, only awarded
by Britannia to those who serve the British
empire's interests in some way. As the factual record stands, “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal undoubtedly served the diabolical interests of the
British empire – his poetic exposition on Islam's empowerment
of man notwithstanding.

One
could argue that Iqbal knowingly used Islam for the British empire's
own instrument of divide et impera.
Because, as one could arguably reason with certitude, no farsighted
sage known for the immensity of his intellect can ever be so
shortsighted.

In
Germany having become acquainted
with Hegel and the Hegelian Dialectic, and in Britain with the
broader agenda of the British empire from Rhodes to the Round Tables,
“Sir” Muhammad Iqbal surely understood
in the wake of World War I, that colonialism was already on the wane
and a new era of nation-states was being ushered in. That the
Anglo-American establishment would now be running the interim new
world order of the twentieth century with neocolonialism
rather than direct colonialism. With that
as the percipient backdrop, “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal
therefore surely understood that the partition of the Indian
subcontinent was advantageous to the Great Game players of the
preceding century. That it would surely be more productive to make it
appear to be the natural demand of the people of India themselves.
The British empire had already observed how the Hindus and Muslims
had come together in their previous rebellion
of 1857, and had demonstrated an uncanny ability to live together
peaceably for centuries. They had to be torn asunder to ensure that
such a large land mass and large population
center could not rise to become rivals of the Western hegemony which
was only changing the stripes on its flag in the twentieth century,
not its exercise.

“Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal therefore, either opportunistically or ideologically,
whereas history written by hagiographic as well as Western scribes
makes it out to be due to the “dire” political reality of
Muslims in India, took over from where his Cambridge compatriot
Choudhary Rahmat Ali, Founder, Pakistan National Movement, had left
his 1933 “now or never” template for partitioning India
(see http://tinyurl.com/now-or-never-rahmatali-1933
). “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal drove his own long-gestating
version of the two nation advocacy through the Muslim League
leadership, convincing them of its validity by the sheer weight of
the imposing name that was proposing it. His own. Any lesser man
making the same proposal would have been ignored – just as
ChoudharyRahmat
Ali, a non-entity, not known for his non-existent poetic brilliance
for “Renaissance of Islam”, was sensibly ignored for
substantially similar concept.

The
empire had cultivated and anointed the right asset for pushing the
real coup de grâce to the Indian
subcontinent forward in the next baby-step. Fathering the right
political demand and a national movement for a “Muslim State”.
Just as it was simultaneously transpiring for the long-planned
partition of Palestine for the construction of the Jewish State. Only
an ignoramus, or the most simpleton, will think that Israel was
created for the Jews due to the immediately transpiring “dire”
consequences of the HolocaustTM
in World War II. No – the partition of India was long-planned.
Surely no later than the granting of the Balfour Declaration to the
Jews in 1917. Someday, documents yet to be uncovered from the still
classified imperial archives will furnish the smoking gun behind the
conception of a new pathological puppet
Muslim State as the empire was decapitating the all powerful ruling
Muslim state. The principle behind the partition plan of the Indian
subcontinent had to be to create a pathological
condition in the Indian subcontinent which would be hard to overcome.
Which is precisely the empirical evidence.

To
execute that long term imperial plan, “Sir” Muhammad
Iqbal deliberately spun a specious dogma by using Islam as the
pretext for the underlying irreconcilable differences between the two
peoples, Hindus and Muslims. The temporary political instability, the
manufactured “revolutionary times”, was speciously argued
to be the unconquerable permanent manifestation of these fundamental
differences due to religion. Suddenly, within just a few short years
after World War I and the formation of the Round Tables, two peoples
were deemed to no longer be able to co-exist together in changing
times after having done so for a thousand years.

“Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal doctrinally instrumented a forced separation of a
people that remains unprecedented in the
entire fourteen and a half century history of the Muslims to this
very day. And he did it all in the name of “Renaissance of
Islam” – Many literate Muslims to this day love him for
it! I am not sure who is the bigger abuser of Islam, the atheist
Jewish superman Zbigniew Brzezinski who confessed to “giving
to the USSR its Vietnam war” by goading the Afghan
Mujahideens with: “God is on your
side” (see http://tinyurl.com/Islam-Socialization
), or, the theist Muslim marde-momin “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal who caused the blood-drenched partition of an entire
subcontinent using pretty much the same doctrinal goading.

The
recurring statement above, manufactured “revolutionary times”,
bears closer inspection. That term in quotes comes from David
Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of the
other blood-soaked partition legatee of the
British empire, who famously expressed its utility most poignantly
sometimes in the 1930s for the forced creation of the Jewish State in
Palestine by the expulsion of its indigenous population:

“What
is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times;
and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible at
such great hours is not carried out – a whole world is lost”
— David Ben Gurion (cited in Norman G. Finkelstein,
Image and reality of the Israel—Palestine conflict, Verso
books, 2003, pg. xii)

The
afore-cited author further quotes the Jewish historian Tom Segev
to explain the diabolical genius that lay behind the construction of
these “revolutionary times”: 'The idea of transfer had
accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings, ...
“Disappearing” the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist
Dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence.' And
Finkelstein himself notes with brilliant hindsight: “The key
was to get the timing right.”! (Ibid.)

It
is impossible that “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal, while being so brilliant on the one hand, remained
stoically unaware of the underpinnings of the Zionist movement, and
its Nietzscheian “will to power” through the creation and
harvesting of “revolutionary times”.

The
following is what Leo Strauss, “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal's
atheist counterpart and also contemporary philosopher of the new
Jewish State in the founding, wrote in 1931-32, directly expressing
Nietzsche's philosophy of “will to power” of the superman
as the key motivational force behind the demand and orchestration for
the Jewish State:

'Political
Zionism has repeatedly characterized itself as the will to normalize
the existence of the Jewish people, to normalize the Jewish people.
By this self-definition it has exposed itself to a grave
misunderstanding, namely, the misunderstanding that the will to
normality was the first word of political Zionism; the most effective
criticism of political Zionism rests on this misunderstanding. In
truth, the presupposition of the Zionist will to normalization, that
is, of the Zionist negation of galut
[exile], is the conviction that "the power of religion has been
broken". Because the break with religion has been resolutely
effected by many individual Jews, and only because of this reason, it
is possible for these individuals to raise the question on behalf of
their people, how the people is to live from now on. Not that they
prostrate themselves before the idol of normality; on the contrary:
they no longer see any reason for the lack of normality. And this is
decisive: in the age of atheism, the Jewish people can no longer base
its existence on God but only on itself alone, on its labor, on its
land, and on its state. ...' — Leo Strauss, The Early Writings
1921-1932, pg. 202

And
we have already witnessed in all the preceding verbiage that for
“Sir” Muhammad Iqbal, the philosopher of the new Muslim
State in the founding, the key motivational force behind the demand
and orchestration for the Muslim State during exactly the same
time-period, was the Hegelian converse of Nietzsche's superman,
the marde-momin.

Two
opposite types of man, yet harvesting the same modus operandi of
“revolutionary times” to realize their respective dream
state, one for the Jewish superman, the other for the Muslim
marde-momin.

The
near simultaneity of the same methods
appearing in both Palestine and the Indian subcontinent for their
respective partitioning by the same masters, using the ideologically
similar doctrinal justification of burrowing deep into the respective
religious ethos to find a rationale for the “Jewish State and
the “Muslim State”, employing the same diabolical
political science of “revolutionary times” to legitimize
the manufactured political demand and its concomitant political
movement among its respective masses who fervently begin to believe
in their new destiny as the only solution to their respective
existential dilemma, and by getting the timing right in both cases,
identifies the common lines of forces behind their common thinking
pattern. Especially when observing all the forces which shape events,
both local and distant, overt and hidden, from the heights
of Mt. Fuji.

It
is further impossible that “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal, while so brilliantly bred in England and Germany in
their elite political institutions, a
Cambridge man, chosen as member of the executive council of the newly
established British branch of the Indian Muslim League, made
representative of the Muslims of India in the Round Table Conferences
held in England to discuss the issue of the political future of
India, was simultaneously also so poorly
read of empire's own political doctrines. That he had closed his eyes
to what their own institutional elite openly declared as the endgame
of their international political ideology for the newly emerging
nation-states which they were temporarily thrusting upon all former
empires (the British, the Ottoman, the Hapsburg):

“We
are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this
mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local
nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips
what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty
of the local nation states of the world is still a heresy for which a
statesman or publicist can perhaps not quite be burned at the stake
but certainly be ostracized or discredited.” — Arnold
Toynbee, The Trend of International Affairs
Since the War, International Affairs, November 1931, page 809

To
proclaim on the one hand the great Allama's brilliant mind, and on
the other hand excuse him for his pathetic ignorance of world affairs
while he is a most distinguished political player representing the
political future of an entire subcontinent, is a non
sequitur.

Such
absurdities only occur in Alice in Wonderland, or in the academic
mind ensconced in the ivory tower of
immanent philosophy. When encountered in real political life, it is
almost always indicative of superman at play weaving images on
the screen of Plato's cave for controlling the public mind (see
http://tinyurl.com/Plato-Myth-of-the-Cave
).

Moving
right along.

How
were “revolutionary times” manufactured for the Indian
subcontinent?

Muslims
are so sensitive to their religion that to create riots on demand
among Muslim polity is even easier than before. Draw a cartoon, make
a movie, and voilà, –
there is raw anger pouring into the streets which can be trivially
harvested to create “revolutionary times” on demand.
“Sir” Muhammad Iqbal's two nation advocacy was similarly
harvested by the Muslim League political leaders to bring Muslim
public out into the streets demanding a separate nation after their
sensitivities were appropriately “tickled”. The emotional
Hindu-Muslim riots were instrumental in forcing the public mind for
partition. In marketing terms, it is called demand creation. Just as
riots can be engineered today by drawing a cartoon or making a film
with useful idiots and planted stooges fanning the flame –
when the firewood is primed, any match can light the fire – the
fertile grounds for “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal's two nation
reality was politically engineered on demand by shrewdly preying upon
the public mind. Its fulfillment therefore,
as the demand of the Muslims themselves, thus became a
self-fulfilling prophecy.

Exactly
what the British empire wanted all along but pretended that they were
merely acquiescing to the Muslim demand for partition. Such a crime
unilaterally committed without that pretext
of “Muslim demand” in place would otherwise have united
the entire subcontinent's public against the British empire. And that
“Muslim demand” was given existential currency only by
the temporary “revolutionary times” manufactured for that
purpose. The same way as in these times when the American public mind
was made to “United We Stand” to every abhorrent and evil
act of their superpower government by the “catastrophic
terrorism” of 9/11 – their “revolutionary times”
to make possible what “is
inconceivable in normal times.” See Behavior Control by
The Mighty Wurlitzer to perceptively fathom how the public mind is
made with adept perception management (
http://tinyurl.com/MightyWurlitzer
).

Now
that the engineered fait accompli of partition, and the senseless
spilling of each others blood cannot be reversed, the least these
offspring nations of the Indian subcontinent can do is to acquire
some national “sha-oor” (wisdom, wherewithal) and
recognize their common enemy. It is not each other, it is not each
others religion, nor each others culture. It is the supra-national
state in the making as the one-world government. This new elephant
will be ruling them with no less a draconian
trunk than in the colonial era, using house niggers, useful
idiots, planted stooges, and mercenaries to govern their public
mind no less effectively than when the subcontinent was the
spectacular Jewel in the crown of the British empire.

The
fact that “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal did serve long term
British imperial interests, or more aptly put as the Anglo-American
interests, is not in question. The truth of these words is once again
beyond doubt. The conferring by the King of
the British empire, and Iqbal's acceptance, of the royal knighthood
alone make it self-evident that “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal was
their prized doctrinal scholar and he knew it. The affect of Iqbal's
two nation dogma which debilitated the entire Indian subcontinent,
perpetually enslaving it to the Western powers, loudly bespeaks it.
Judging a tree by tasting its fruit – and not by the elegant
narrative of the orchard from a poet's fertile imagination –
underscores the undeniable truth of the matter.

There
will continue to remain a primary question mark on “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal's role and the forces which motivated him. It is not
merely an academic question mark today almost a century later, even
though what his two nation advocacy instrumented in practice cannot
be undone. But it is most pertinent to perceptively examine the
Machiavellian matter of “cognitive infiltration” of the
public mind by the brilliant mind, the superman.

Muslims
today must better apprehend the dynamics of social engineering which
manipulate and almost choreograph the public mind using their
respective sensitivities, attachments, and beliefs, which for them is
primarily sources from their religion.

Therefore,
the question must be perceptively examined as it has direct
pertinence to understanding matters in today's scientific modernity
which is far more susceptible to social
engineering with the ubiquitous reach of
the Mighty Wurlitzer, than was ever
possible before.

Was
“Sir” Muhammad Iqbal only unknowingly the stooge of the
British empire, easily cultivated by them due to the size of his own
ego, or was he also their Trojan Horse? Was it due to his
shortsightedness alone that he effectively handicapped an entire
subcontinent from ever becoming a world power by using empire's own
strategy of divide et impera, or was it due to his long range
thinking on behalf of the British empire whose king had so honored
him, that he diabolically employed divide et impera using his
poetic skills and expertise of Islam? Does it matter which one –
if in either case Muslims fell for it?

The
fact that the British ruled their colonies by cultivating both useful
idiots and Trojan
horses is not in doubt. All the
feudal titles and “sirs” bestowed upon the natives of the
Indian subcontinent speak to the brilliant governance of over three
hundred million peoples by a handful of foreigners sitting ten
thousand miles away. They employed the same class of strategic
thinking for their withdrawal as they had
employed for managing their occupation for over two centuries.

A
similarly celebrated “Sir” of the Indian subcontinent of
that colonial era is “Sir” SyedAhmed Khan, the man who helped implement
Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay's English-only Indian Education
Policy, effectively constituting a “brown sahib” Muslim
class and separating them from the languages of their birthplace –
and hence their own heritage!

The
following speech made by Lord Macaulay in
1835 is in the official records of the British Parliament:

‘What
then shall that language be? One-half of the committee maintain that
it should be the English. The other half strongly recommend the
Arabic and Sanscrit. The whole question seems to me to be-- which
language is the best worth knowing?

I
have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what
I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read
translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have
conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their
proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the
oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves.
I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf
of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of
India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western
literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee
who support the oriental plan of education.’

‘We
must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters
between us and the millions whom we govern, –a class of persons
Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in
morals and in intellect.’
-- http://tinyurl.com/macaulay-1835

Read
Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay's speech in
its entirety to barely catch a glimpse of the depth and long range
strategic thinking of the most diabolical and sophisticated colonizer
ever to occupy the Indian subcontinent in recorded history.

The
flattersome tickling of their native
informant with “Sir” speaks to the brazen cultivation of
that house nigger who so successfully led the implementation
of Macaulay's education policy among
Muslims. (To understand that adjective “house nigger” see
FAQ: What is an Intellectual Negro? http://tinyurl.com/House-Nigger
) Its impact is visible to this very day among the post-partitioned
nations so violently spawned from that once fabulous Jewel
in the Crown by harvesting the untiring labors of another one of
their key “Sirs”.

While
such a smoking gun as Lord Macaulay's speech is obviously not yet
discovered in the archives of the former British empire to identify
the real intellectual pedigree of “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal's
and his confrere Ch. Rahmat Ali's pernicious two nation advocacy (at
least I am not aware of it), the evidence of sharing the benefactions
of the British empire with all the rest of their useful idiots
and mercenaries speaks loudly enough.

And
so does the Hegelian Dialectic – create the problem of “brown
sahib” in one century, and then offer a solution opposing that
tendency in their offspring in the next century – and use both
to continue to inflict empire's primacy upon them for centuries.

Just
like contemporarily creating the “freedom-fighter”
Mujahideen in one decade, harvesting their
offspring to create the “Islamofascist”
Terrorist in the next decade, and using both to similarly inflict
empire's supremacy upon the same foolish Muslim mind which time and
again gets taken in by a most cunning foe.

The
masterful foe did not disappear with the waning of colonialism –
which only morphed into neocolonialism and “democracy”.
The white man's burden also did not lessen with it. That
burden today is “reform Islam” (
http://tinyurl.com/Reform-Islam
), “moderate Islam”, to counter “militant Islam”,
for a similar diabolical purpose. It similarly attempts at
discovering, cultivating and harvesting the most respectable looking
scholars and intellectuals among Muslims themselves (see
http://tinyurl.com/identifying-moderate-muslims
), and minimally purchases their silence with paychecks from its vast
military-industrial-academe complex. It is a fortunate gift of
providence to the Muslims that their masterful foe has not yet found
a talent like “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal to preach “moderate
Islam” to them – for the Allama's lofty teachings on
Islam are actually its deadly nemesis. Surely only a talent like the
Allama's could even counter it.

Seduction
always comes wrapped in attractive garb. Unless it can attract, it is
not seducing. Self-evident of course, but something easy to ignore
when one is madly in love. It is what's underneath the beautiful gown
that must be ferreted out in order to judge, whether or not one is in
love, and before one shares the nuptial bed. Afterwards, it is fait
accompli and only of interest for keeping historians and narrators in
paid jobs. That preemption requires “sha-oor”, wisdom,
insight, courage, and a fully functioning
brain to engage it. In the guise of developing that very “sha-oor”
among the Muslims to end their servitude to empire, the good Allama
was awarded the knighthood by empire which had exactly relied on that
servitude for over two centuries.

Why?

Because,
one may easily surmise that “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal had the stellar intellect to instinctively
perceive that the public mind so steeped in mental slavery will never
detach itself from its chains. And, just like the Muslims have
mindlessly been parroting the verses of the Holy Qur'an for
centuries, they will also mindlessly be rehearsing his beautiful
verses explaining the Holy Qur'an for many more centuries without any
“sha-oor” ever developing between their ears. If the
majestic words of the Holy Qur'an could not free Muslims from the
yoke of servitude to fellow man and to their own ego, their “nafs”,
their petty self-interests, the verses of a mere mortal social
scientist, despite his over-inflated ego, certainly weren't gonna
better that instruction. But his uplifting poems heralding Islam's
renaissance were attractive enough for the Muslim public mind at an
emotional level. It enabled crafting an imposing intellectual
opinion-maker as the “hakim-ul-ummat” for the time being.
And that's all the legitimacy that was required to mobilize the
public mind for the imperial agenda at hand to seed its fait
accompli. The diabolical strategy was beautifully executed as a
text-book Hegelian Dialectic. One for partition imbued with the
spirit of Islam (the Muslims represented by the Indian Muslim
League), and one dead set against it (the
Hindus represented by the Indian Congress), thus creating the
necessary “revolutionary times” which the clash of
opposites always bring, and from whose ashes was fashioned their new
Great Game on the newly emerging Grand Chessboard of the
post-colonial era.

This
analysis is substantiated by two
incontrovertible facts.

The
facts on the ground since the partition
match the preceding discussion. Specifically the fact that none of
these three nations have been able to substantially raise the level
of their general public's well-being beyond the pre-partition
levels. Each nation has only cultivated new ruling classes while
simultaneously increasing the share of poverty. With an ignorant and
down-trodden majority public, no nation can ever rise. That was the
overarching philosophy behind the partition of the subcontinent, and
in the rise of the subsequent national leadership in each nation.
Each one was encouraged to spend on defence against the other,
encouraged into making opposite alliances with reigning superpowers,
and encouraged into holding each other in perpetual check like two
scorpions in a bottle. This forcing
function of “encouragement” once again transpired by
ensuring useful idiots, stooges, mercenaries, or at least
manipulatable leaders, always stayed at the helm of national
affairs, just as it has been so in the United States of America. Any
undesirably patriotic leader is simply assassinated as an example to
others to not stray beyond the narrowly permissible guidelines on
international affairs, with a bit more leeway
to indulge their lusts for leadership and power in domestic affairs.
Can the recipients of the partition of the Indian subcontinent deny
any of this with a straight face for their respective nations?

The
fact that it was “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal who introduced the
idea of a Muslim State to the political leadership of the Muslim
League, including to Mr. MohammedAliJinnah, the founding political leader of
the state of Pakistan. It was not a demand which organically emerged
from the Indian Muslim peoples of the subcontinent themselves. It
had a singular, and knighted, prime-mover.

Historical
records show that it was “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal who
approached Mr. Jinnah who was initially for a united Indian
subcontinent after the withdrawal of the British. It was “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal who convinced (the naïve?) Mr. Jinnah of the
rationale for a separate nation state for the Muslims based only,
and only, on the immediately unfolding “revolutionary times”
on the ground. Absent those opinion-making “revolutionary
times”, the most outstanding constitutional mind among the
Muslims in the Indo-subcontinent which
that century had yet produced, wanted a united India like the
leaders of the Indian Congress led by Hindu leaders. Mr. Jinnah was
arguably never afforded the political opportunity to develop a
constitutional framework for helping found
a constitutional republic in a united post-colonial India such that
even ninety nine percent of the people could not deprive the
remaining one percent of their rights. Let alone the majority Hindu
legally deprive the huge Muslim minority their constitutional
rights in anyway based on race, religion, or creed. Such was the
precedent settingconstitutional
republic upon which the egalitarian United States of America was
once founded, which in turn had employed England's own great charter
of liberties for its own white peoples, the Magna Carta. All that
political capital of the colonizing white man of how to live
together in liberty for themselves, was chucked aside by “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal just when liberty was finally beckoning.
And by the political stooges he had somehow managed to enlist
to lead the political movement for a Muslim State, all of whom
instead patterned their call for liberty on the misanthropic Jewish
State to seed permanent discord in the land!

The
brilliant white mind yet prevailing upon the colonized one, just as
Lord Macaulay had successfully fashioned a century before, clearly
shines through. “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal evidently
understood both minds well, having risen from one, to become the
other. Which is why “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal was the first
to politically propose, in 1930, before anyone else in India even
imagined it, or wanted it, the conception of a Muslim State to be
carved out of the Indian subcontinent. A singular prime-mover,
deftly cultivated and anointed by the British empire, and chosen to
give political representation to the Muslims on his “Islamic”
credentials previously established as the “hakim-ul-ummat”.
Can the recipients of the Muslim State deny any of this with a
straight face? The facts are reported officially by the Government
of Pakistan. Only their fuller context on the grand chessboard is
underscored by this analysis done by a citizen of that same Muslim
State (which, the reader might already be aware, is his only
citizenship, by choice, despite being a US permanent resident,
meaning, bearer of the famous “green card”, for almost
three decades).

The
public mind must remain ever vigilant for the arising of another such
“hakim-ul-ummat”
among them. That public mind has already been primed for the “final
savior” to engage the Armageddon which their preachers daily
frighten them with from high pulpits. And he just might show up
adorning the mantle of “moderate Islam”.

I
have already unmasked several such wanna-be, including the famous
“Ambassador of Peace”, similarly dispatched by the
masterful foe to the Muslims, mainly of Pakistan, to now preach
“moderate Islam” and “khilafat” --- the same
sort that “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal remained silent on while
the same imperial masters were dismantling it as the Ottoman empire.
Fortunately, this “Ambassador of Peace” isn't quite in
the Allama's intellectual class – too transparent ( see
http://tinyurl.com/Fatwa-Tahir-ul-Qadri
). And nor is this clever convert to Islam in the United States of
America whose dazzling oratory and brilliant command of the Arabic
language has acquired him a large following among the educated
“moderate Muslims” ( see Hamza Yusuf in The Mighty
Wurlitzer http://tinyurl.com/MightyWurlitzer
).

They
are almost always imposing experts on Islam, they say and do mostly
the right things with much eloquence, also carefully don't say and do
all the right things with stone silence, and sometimes purvey
half-truths, quarter truths, and outright lies wrapped in the veneer
of truth. That veneer is often Islam. Muslims come flocking to them
because of it, and because of their endearing power of expression as
orator, or littérateur, or both.
With their power to mold public opinion, they assist the superpower
empire du jour in its aims of primacy and hegemony just as the good
“Sir” Muhammad Iqbal, “Sir” Syed Ahmed Khan,
and all the rest of the pious “Sirs” assisted the
superpower empire of their time.

Conclusion

The
Muslim mind, especially the Pakistani's, admires “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal's beautiful poems dearly, whether or not it
comprehends the words, let alone the philosophy. Muslim scholars,
poets, ullemas, and literati who quote him liberally often hold deep
convictions that “hakim-ul-ummat” Allama Iqbal's vast
body of words speaks for itself and needs no apologies. Yes, and so
do “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal's vast body of acts, of both
commission and omission. More than his lovely poetry which has had
virtually zero impact upon the Muslim public mind, “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal's acts have left a lasting imprint on the destiny of
the Muslim public, and upon the lands they have lived on for
millennia. And perhaps these do need an apology.

Muslims
have an opportunity to learn from scrutinizing their own past history
with a forensic eye and not a jaundiced one. Only then can we preempt
becoming victims of “future history”. That learning
however can only happen by exercising one's own internal imam, one's
intellect, and not with hero-worship of Sacred Cows rehearsing their
beautiful gifts of delectable words. They often only lead one to hell
on earth while promising the heaven beyond.

Watch
video documentary

The
Day India Burned: Partition, 1947, BBC Special Presentation*

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=zcKS9JPSfCg]

Postscript

It
is always possible that I have misperceived the great Allama Iqbal's
pious motivations. In which case, the great Allama, while being a
brilliant poet-philosopher, was also a shortsighted political fool.
He could neither perceive that the “revolutionary times”
were transient and manufactured, nor foresee that partition would
only benefit his imperial masters in their new great game in the
post-colonial era. Take your pick – either a superman or
a useful idiot. “Sir” Muhammad Iqbal's political
profile hardly reads like a naïve simpleton's to even arguably
conclude the latter: “Already in 1908, while in England, he
had been chosen as a member of the executive council of the newly
established British branch of the Indian Muslim League. In 1931 and
1932 he represented the Muslims of India in the Round Table
Conferences held in England to discuss the issue of the political
future of India. And in a 1930 lecture Iqbal suggested the creation
of a separate homeland for the Muslims of India.”

The
judgment of this analysis however does not rest upon Allama Iqbal's
motivations. But is based entirely upon his acts. Of both omission
and commission. It is these acts which principally lend some insight
into his primary motivation and the forces driving it. “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal consistently behaved exactly as the honorific “Sir”
entitled him to behave, as the Knight of the British empire –
he was their superman!

Only
that inner mental attitude explains why “Sir” Muhammad
Iqbal felt no compunction about abusing Islam to separate a people
who had lived together for a thousand years. A superman spins
morality for others, but feels himself beyond good and evil. Ends
justify means including public deception. None of which spring any
great fountains of guilt in the ubermensch. Study Nietzsche to
perceptively comprehend this evil philosophy and its lasting impact
on the superior intellect of Allama Iqbal. Nietzsche himself adapted
it from Plato's virtuous philosopher-king, whereby, the superior
intellect of the philosopher-king kills God – meaning, becomes
atheist. All the rest of Nietzsche naturally followed from just that
one tiny but fundamental change to Plato. The superior intellect is
transformed from the virtuous philosopher-king of Plato to
Nietzsche's superman. This new superman is still
licensed, just as he is with Plato, to control and guide other lesser
peoples' destinies as their “moral” steward – for
he is the most enlightened among them. For Plato, the virtuous
philosopher-king is not just entitled to be the public's guide, but
is morally required to be the public's guide. The virtuous
philosopher-king is closest to Truth, hence to God, and hence better
able to govern with moral wisdom those lacking in that merit. Same in
Nietzsche's world. The superman is required to be the public's
steward – except that the superman is also god. The
superman now defines morality for the public, what is good and
what is evil, while himself remaining beyond the pale of his own
preaching to the lowly, like any god. The superman now feels
intellectually entitled to play with these lesser intelligent
people's lives. They are just sheep, dispensable, butcherable. The
superman can get them to dance on his strings whenever he
wants, to fight his battles, to carry his burden, to do his dirty
work, just like Zeus and Apollo, the mythical gods of Athens in Greek
mythology.

While
the great Allama Iqbal may have been preaching the virtuous Platonic
version of “marde-momin” to the Muslim public mind, he
evidently himself believed and acted on the Nietzsche's version of
the ubermensch! His actions alone speak to the truth of those
words.

N.B.
The author seeks evidence that would credibly indicate that “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal ever returned the Knighthood. His own statement to
this effect would be useful. If such evidence is available, the
author will appreciate receiving a reference.

Footnote
* Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/v/zcKS9JPSfCg See
Editor's Note in The
Search for Historical Truth: Partition of India and Palestine - The
UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947
on Project Humanbeingsfirst's Area-Specialization website
Pakistan-Politicohttp://pakistan-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/
for accurate revisionist analysis of the Act of imperial fiat that
forcibly partitioned the Indian subcontinent, away from the emotional
narratives of the official scribes and Uncle Toms of the
British empire. The simpleton Muslims and Hindus of India, including
their British trained political leaders, were as much in control of
their ancient land's partition as the people of Palestine! To this
day the people of the Indian subcontinent, especially Pakistanis, are
denied this comprehension under the false flag of separatist
religionism.

Was
“Sir” Allama Iqbal also an Ahmadi
and the follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the fellow who created a new
“peaceful Islam” Movement in India as the so called
“promised reformer” after the militant 1857 Indian War
of Independence which the British empire termed “mutiny”,
had failed? A new document find reveals that to be the case.

This
is a most significant question because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad anointed
himself the God inspired “mujjaddid” and founded an
intellectual Movement of “peace” in the name of Islam
which principally did not challenge the British empire's right to
rule the Indian sub-continent as the new divinely appointed authority
over the Muslims. The hijacking of the verse 4:59 of the Holy Qur'an
to “Obey Allah, Obey the Messenger and those vested in
authority over you” made it theologically easy. This
indefinite clause has been used for
fourteen centuries to legitimize imperial authority over the Muslim
mind. Initially it was by the Muslims themselves and the world saw
one dynastic Caliphate after another deriving their legitimacy as
administerers of God's authority over the Muslim public. Well, by the
beginning of the 19th century the burden had passed on to the
Anglo-Saxon Christian empire to rule the Muslim mind in the Indian
sub-continent. The Ahmadiyyat Movement
sought to neutralize Indian Muslim militant and intellectual
opposition to the British empire which had surfaced with extreme
violence in 1857 uniting Hindus and Sikhs with Muslims in common
cause.

The
new “peaceful Islam” philosophy was marketed under the
banner of “reform” not much different in its political
dispensation than the “moderate Islam” being marketed by
Daniel Pipes and his patsies like Tahir-ul Qadri et. al. worldwide,
defining the new “good Muslim” and advocating full
cooperation with all of the empire's mandates, narratives, and
political directions. The overzealously religious Muslims of the Indo
sub-continent needed subduing by all means possible, and theology is
usually among the first recourse of any invader from an advanced
civilization intellectually sophisticated enough to understand its
power to command obedience. The Mongol invaders
weren't and therefore eventually came to be absorbed by the
relatively richer Indian civilization themselves. The new invaders,
the more advanced British empire, understood Machiavelli. And so the
Indians got the flourishing Ahmadiyyat movement which tacitly
accepted the white man's burden of the superior civilizing
force gradually bequeathing political and educational enlightenment
by piece-meal dispensation to the backward Indian natives to
slowly bring them up to speed on the self-governance they demanded!
In the meantime, the white man continued to plunder the Jewel in the
Crown as fair compensation for his selfless la mission
civilisatrice!

The
fact that the British empire exactly harbored that very primacy
complex and cultivated native Uncle Toms
to help run the empire's la mission civilisatrice
is already proven by Lord Macaulay's speech of 1835 to the British
Parliament which had led to crafting of the Indian Education policy
for its Jewel in the Crown. The number of Ahmadis and other
Muslim minorities anointed into “Sir” by the British
Empire, the Uncle Toms trained in London and brought forth
into public prominence and into Muslim leadership, all of whom
subsequently led, energized, and participated in the manufactured
separatist movement to divide the Indian sub-continent in the name of
Islam, is itself beyond doubt. It is both factual and self-evident.

The
shocking discovery here is that “Sir” Allama Iqbal, the
Ahmadi documentation claims, was an Ahmadi!

The
“shocking” part, so to speak, is why would a supposed
intellectual of the stature of “Sir” Allama Iqbal fall
for this “mujjaddid reformer”,
and as the document asserts, “in 1897, Sir Muhammad Iqbal
took the pledge of Mirza sahib”?

It
is not like “Sir”
Muhammad Iqbal was born into the Ahmadiyya sect and inherited
that belief system like many of its notable members who played a
direct role in the orchestration of Pakistan, men like “Sir”
Zafarulla Khan.

If
this report is to be believed, Allama Iqbal intellectually adopted
the Ahmadiyya faith by taking the pledge of allegiance directly at
the hands of its original founder who called himself the divinely
anointed “mujjaddid”!

Why
isn't this “fact” more well known in Pakistan where the
scholarly study of Iqbal, and all things Iqbal, termed “Iqbaliyat”,
is ubiquitous?

Virtually
every Muslim group, sect, and fiqh, of Pakistan claims “Sir”
Iqbal to be their intellectual based on his lofty poems selling the
“marde-momin”. But it was Iqbal who claimed Ahmadiyyat as
his intellectual foundation.

Begin
Quote

Dr.
Iqbal’s attachment grew so much that in 1897 he formally took
the bai‘at at the hand of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This was
confirmed by Maulvi Ghulam Muhiy-ud-Din Qasoori, ex-General Secretary
of the Anjuman Himayat-i Islam, Lahore, at the time when the Munir
Court of Enquiry was being held in Pakistan in 1953. His statement
was reported in a newspaper as follows:

“After
five years, in 1897, Sir Muhammad Iqbal took the pledge of Mirza
sahib.” (Daily Nawa-i Waqt, Lahore, 15 November 1953.)

See
Chapter 8 for English translation of some verses of “Sir”
Allama Iqbal's poems that were written in praise of the British
rulers of India, http://www.muslim.org/iqbal/ch8.htm
. The future knighted “Sir” of the British empire
evidently also harbored scant reservations for writing flattering
praise for the oppressive British sovereigns if such gratuitous
ass-kissing of the Massa could make him standout as
their greatest Uncle Tom from among their worldwide subjects!
Please visit these links to read for yourself how the British
sovereign were “the
protective shadow of God”
over their colonial subjects.

Well,
sure enough, Iqbal stood out, the British empire noticed him and his
conversion to Ahmadiyyat, educated him, groomed him to serve their
interests, appointed him to the Round Table, and eventually knighted
him! Allama Iqbal's willing acceptance and retention of knighthood
betrays his true motivation for the lavish praise that he had heaped
upon the King and Queen of the British empire and supported their
imperial causes by his acts of both commission and omission. It all
makes sense. The acute discernment of facts and all the forces that
drive them can lift the fog of confusion, but only for those able to
examine the matter with some degree of emotional detachment.

Analyzing
Iqbal and Ahmadiyyat in his early years

If
Iqbal's Ahmadiyya pledge is indeed a fact and not mere myth as the
majority of “feel-good” Muslims who claim him as their
marde-momin are wont to assert, often with far less evidence
concerning Iqbal's attachment to Ahmadiyya in his early years (as
opposed to his last years when he openly came out in condemnation of
it as examined below) than is provided by the Ahmadi document in
support of their claim, then it is also a comprehensible fact. A
brilliant young opportunist at the start of his career openly
signaling his willingness to make the Faustian bargain
in the service of empire. Whether Iqbal actually believed in this
absurdity in the inner most recesses of his heart only he would know
for sure, but the Ahmadi document asserts that other pilgrims in the
camp believed that he was really a believer in their faith and
followed in the footsteps of his family members' disposition towards
Ahmadiyyat (see ch2, op. cit.):

However,
the prima facie evidence of what followed his pledge of allegiance to
Ahmadiyya in 1897 at the ripe young age of twenty, is entirely
self-consistent with the observation that Iqbal calculatingly did
everything he possibly could to attract the attention of the British
empire with ass-kissing praise of the occupying colonial power
that even today sickens one to the stomach (see ch8, ibid.):

Begin
Quote

Upon
the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, Dr. Iqbal penned an epicedium of
ten pages, entitled ‘Tears of Blood’, from which we give
a few verses below. The Queen died on the day of Eid-ul-Fitr, and
Iqbal wrote:

“Happiness
came, but grief came along with it, Yesterday was Eid, but today came
muharram [month of the year associated with the deepest mourning for
Muslims]

“Easier
than the grief and mourning of this day, Would be the coming of the
morn of the day of judgment.

“Ah!
the Queen of the realm of the heart has passed away, My scarred heart
has become a house of mourning.

“O
India, thy lover has passed away, She who sighed at thy troubles has
passed away.

“O
India, the protective shadow of God has been lifted from above you,
She who sympathised with your inhabitants has gone.

“Victoria
is not dead as her good name remains, this is the life to whomever
God gives it.

“May
the deceased receive abundant heavenly reward, and may we show goodly
patience.”

(Baqiyyat-i
Iqbal, poem runs over pages 71– 90. Translator’s Note: I
have only translated here some of the verses quoted by Hafiz Sher
Mohammad in his original Urdu work.)

End
Quote

The
Ahmadi Iqbal succeeded in winning the British empire's trust to the
point of being sent not just to England to be groomed in the ways of
empire as was deemed necessary by Lord Macaulay in his 1835 statement
to the British Parliament for manufacturing British empire's House
Niggers“who may be
interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, –a
class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes,
in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”, but
also to Germany to get a doctorate in nihilism! Let's examine
this latter oxymoron a bit more forensically keeping empirical facts
before us in order to not stray into baseless speculation.

Arguably
it was Iqbal's gratuitous pledge of allegiance to Ahmadiyyat which
signaled to the British empire that this
brilliant young mind from the unknown backwaters of Sialkot was
reliably willing to be their diabolical asset among the Muslims. The
NietzscheanSuperman
is naturally amoral; beyond all belief systems that ordinary mortals
are infused with. Noble lies and end justifies the means
is the Superman's only “religion”. The
demonstration of gratuitous and willing allegiance
to a manifest absurdity by a most intelligent mind, as opposed to the
dimwitted falling for it, is often a potent signal of a non sequitur.
To attempt to seek the psychological explanation of this empiricism
in political science, it could only have
been a brilliant signal to the ruling
British empire that this intelligent lad was prepared to be their
house nigger and do
anything for them! The British empire, as even the present Pax
Americana empire building NGOs
throughout the world, was always on the look-out for super
intelligent peoples, alongside the useful idiots, who could be
groomed to serve them in their own respective stations. Non sequiturs
can brilliantly aid in that identification of the natural Nietzschean
Superman candidate for grooming.

This
actually explains why Allama Iqbal received such remarkable and early
prominence from the British empire, more than anyone else in the
colonized Indian sub-continent. The empire perhaps quickly discerned
that this most intelligent future Indian asset was by his nature
beyond good and evil and would do anything for them without
necessarily needing to be explicitly told what to do. It is not an
insignificant coincidence that Iqbal was the only notable scion of
the sub-continent who also received his grooming in Germany, in the
atheistic philosophy of Nietzsche and Hegel
– as an Indian Muslim! Iqbal was even given a doctoral thesis
supervisor who was himself a prominent student of Hegel.

So
observe this strange non sequitur: the British empire is grooming a
most brilliant Muslim intellectual to get a Ph.D.
in statism and the nihilistic order!

Not
unless one intimately learns Hegel and the Hegelian Dialectic that
one can appreciate the sophistication of the nihilistic devil
underneath the white virginal wedding gown. And Iqbal is formally
trained by the British empire in that very diabolical theology of
imperial mobilization such that in a fit of public conscience the
marde-momin can easily give away the bride's secret to protect his
peoples from the syphilis epidemic that
always follows in its wake?

Why
did the British empire take that risk of training a brilliant Muslim
intellectual in this avant-garde nihilistic
order whose home base was even in its rival empire?

To
this scribe's knowledge, no other stalwart “Sir” from the
backwaters of the Indian sub-continent, Hindu or Muslim, groomed in
England to serve the British empire, is
known to have also received such academic
training in Nietzsche and Hegel in Germany. The author would
appreciate receiving a citation that might demonstrate otherwise.

Why
is Iqbal such an exception? How did the British
even know to make that exception and so early on in Iqbal's career?

Indubitably,
only if the Massa had
recognized and were certain that they were grooming a trusted
lieutenant, their own Superman!

Undoubtedly
Iqbal's bizarre pledge of allegiance to “Hazrat” MirzaGhulamAhmad –
to so obvious a charlatan who although being a brilliant interlocutor
of Christian missionaries from all the historical accounts, is
fundamentally little different from the flourishing “sufi
pirs” dotting the sub-continental landscape even today who
routinely claim communion with God or with the supernatural and sell
divine prescriptions, just that in his case God had happened to
prescribe peaceful coexistence of the Indian Muslims with the
colonizing British rulers of India – inspired that trust.

How
and why did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian in
India, like Bahaullah of Iran, and AbdulWahab of Arabia previously, succeed in
making his reform Movement so prominent – it is also not an
insignificant coincidence that all three Movements shared one strange
common denominator in their respective Messianic
dispensation, namely, asserting a divine mandate for advocating to
their respective Muslim followers to not challenge the colonial
authority of the British empire – is beyond the scope of this
analysis. It should however also be self-evident to the students of
imperial history who benefited in all three cases; cui bono
always being a pretty good yardstick to learn which god one shills
for.

The
fact that the imperial trust in their new Frankenstein,
diabolically wrapped in
marde-momin's virtuous garb but principally
serving empire's own interests as its Superman, is strictly honored,
is categorically betrayed by evidence of “Sir” Allama
Iqbal's own actions and inactions.

True
to his pledge of allegiance to the new messianic figure of
India, which in effect was the pledge of allegiance to the British
empire, the first significant thing our marde-momin did was to invent
the brilliant rationale for the unprecedented separate Muslim
nation-state to match what was happening in the other long-planned
Rothschild's Round Table project, the
unprecedented partition of Palestine under Moses Hess' brilliant
invention of Rothschild Zionism to motivate the already
well-settled Jews of a culturally developed and sophisticated Europe
to migrate to the rural farm lands of Palestine.

Allama
Iqbal unveiled his specious rationale for a
separate Muslim “nation-state” in synchronicity
with the British empire's Balfour Declaration issued to Lord
Rothschild gratuitously granting the European Jewry
a Jewish “nation-state” of their own in Palestine. The
two rationales are shockingly similar, even coming at precisely the
same epoch in the aftermath of World War I when vast territories of
others were Machiavellianly being carved out in smaller
“nation-states”: a) neither minority community can
co-exist with the majority; b) both speciously draw on theology from
their respective Holy Books to sell the unprecedented
political act of a separate homeland to their respective unwitting
mass base in the name of their respective religion; and c) both are
helped by respective “revolutionary times” on the ground
to legitimize their demand in the most diabolical and murderous
examples of Demand Creation. The modern students of
advertising and marketing, more than engineers and doctors, would
perhaps be better acquainted with that term
which today drives a trillion dollar industry. For the psychological
sophistication that underlies that concept, see Edward
Bernays'
1928 classic book titled: Propaganda, for some
real case studies of Demand Creation.

The
diabolical Balfour Declaration remained
unopposed by “Sir” Allama Iqbal when even non Muslims
like MahatmaGandhi
most straightforwardly exposed the speciousness of the Jewish demand!
Read below the eloquence of commonsense from the mind of a Hindu
non-separatist national leader which the marde-momin Allama Iqbal,
the brilliant philosopher separatist leader of Muslims, could never
muster! And how could he ever muster any such effrontery
as intellectual and moral integrity demanded after his Faustian
pledge of allegiance to the British empire as God's protective
shadow over India? The marde-momin of
the future Pakistan had already prepared the same sort of partition
demand on behalf of the Muslims of India! The demand, politically
legitimized from mere ink on lifeless paper to a thriving Movement by
giving it continued considerations at the Round Table Conferences,
outright neutralized not only the tiny Indian Khilafat Movement
which was being a thorn in the British empire's gluteus maximus,
but also preemptively neutralized any serious Indian Muslim mass
opposition to the Crown's bastardization of the former lands of the
Muslim Ottoman empire from arising in India and opening a second
front of momentous civil disobedience on that count. The risk
mitigation strategy of neutralizing any effective Muslim protest over
handing Jerusalem and Palestine to the Jews from making governance
impossible in the Indian sub-continent for the British empire is
clearly visible here.

The
trust (or the calculated bet) of the British empire in “Sir”
Allama Iqbal as the faithful Superman of empire had been fully
vindicated. The marde-momin of Islam is not known to have uttered any
condemnation of the Jewish demand for Jewistan,
let alone of the most sophisticated and diabolical Balfour
Declaration fraud inflicted upon a naïve agrarian Muslim
population of Palestine, in the twenty years that he lived afterwards
as the knight of the British Round Table. Nothing like the following
straightforward truth escaped the trusted knight's brilliant mind –
and for what reason it escaped the great Mahatma's will be taken up
in a separate episode of the Sacred Cow series dedicated to Gandhi
and his own grooming by the British empire to play in the Hegelian
Dialectic:

“But
my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry
for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me.
The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with
which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should
they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their
home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs
to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to
impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today
cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have
no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime
against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be
restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The
nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews
wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French
in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are
French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the
idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which
they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain
at will? This cry for the national home affords a colorable
justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.” ---Mohandas
K. Gandhi, on Jews & Middle-East, November 1938

It
is surely not impudence to ask why such egregious silence on the most
shocking travesty to be inflicted upon an innocent, mostly Muslim,
indigenous peoples of Palestine from one who so profoundly
articulated the “marde-momin” when even non Muslims can
courageously speak their mind in condemnation of it? The six million
Jews of Europe haven't even perished yet in the infamous still to be
built gas chambers, but the marde-momin of Islam already
appears more concerned for their Jewish welfare than his own Muslim
peoples of Palestine – if “Sir” Allama Iqbal's ugly
silence is permitted to explain his tacit
endorsement of the Jewish demand for Jewistan.

No
zealot Muslim scholar of Pakistan proudly quoting Allama Iqbal is
ever willing to straightforwardly face that question of tacit
endorsement of oppression by the abject silence which unequivocally
colors the “muffakar-e-Pakistan”
as nothing more than the opportunist house nigger of the
British Round Table. But look at the conundrum: How can a Pakistani
intellectual even begin to address that question of their sacred
cow, let alone effectively challenge the raison d'être
of the Jewish State in
Palestine with a straight face, without himself confronting
the very raison d'être of Pakistan in
the Indian sub-continent?

A
brilliantly administered preemptive perpetual check by the Round
Table progenitors of the Jewish State upon Muslims in every time and
space, thanks to “Sir” Allama Iqbal. In order to confront
Jewistan with any degree of intellectual integrity and
honesty, Muslims are forced to confront the creation of Pakistan.
Both nation-states nuclear armed, both dystopic in their birth-pangs
and at birth, and both, even today, a basket case of their respective
civilizations to say the least; the two peoples respectively living
“in the native land of the
hypocrite”
of their own in the name of god!

The
fact that even both people are identically indoctrinated in the fairy
tale construction and divine destiny of their respective
nation is beautifully betrayed by the following Jewish example. It is
evidently a tad easier for the Muslim mind to look more objectively
at the “other”, especially its enemy, than at its own
self, so here is looking at the Jewish state:

“The
state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis
call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba –
the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a
shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to
another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the
Palestinian population at the time – 1,380,000 people –
were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel
officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not
expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN
resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land
was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian
inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's
actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native
Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had
Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As
an Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was
founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation
was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish
people from the danger of another holocaust.” --
Tanya Reinhart, Israel/Palestine – How to End the War of
1948 (emphasis added)

Perhaps
the aforementioned candid example from the pen of a remarkable Jewish
Israeli truth-teller, the professor of linguistics, late Tanya
Reinhart, dispassionately confronting the Zionist myths, can prompt
the interested Muslim Pakistani reader to also go look at how
Pakistani children are, even today, ubiquitously indoctrinated into
the state philosophy from Kindergarten to university, not to forget
in the religious madrassas now dotting virtually every neighborhood
of Pakistan. The following is stated in the section titled National
Education Policy 1998-2010, of the 2007 White Paper on
Education Policy prepared by Pakistan's Education Ministry:

“Continuing
on the 1979 & 1992 policies, this policy makes several leaps.
First, in 21st century it visualizes
Pakistan as an ideological state ... the country cannot survive and
advance without putting the entire system of education on Islamic
foundations....the only justification for our existence is our total
commitment to Islam as out sole identity. Second,
education is perceived as an instrument to 'build the sound Islamic
society'. Third, Islam and Islamic values should not be part of
Islamic studies alone but also all other disciplines.”
(emphasis added)

That,
all that, in this author's view, is the momentous and overarching
consequence of what otherwise does appear
on the surface to the cynic as a rather gratuitous and bizarre pledge
of allegiance, and to the aficionado as
nothing more than the insignificant petulance of youthful exuberance,
for a most brilliant young mind to accept on the hand of a “sufi
pir” on his absurd claim that God
spoke to him and told him to not oppose the British empire!

It
is likely that the Muslim mind, especially the Pakistani mind, will
easily reject these historical linkages without any consideration of
their merit. But it is for everyone to also quite democratically
observe and ponder upon, that the Ahmadiyya sect's sacred mosque
today just happens to be most generously located in Haifa, Israel!
The Ahmadiyya community settled early in the Zionist Jewistan
in the making, as early as 1928 according to wikipedia. Why such
benevolence is shown towards the Ahmadiyya sect by the Zionists, when
the Jewish State since its inception is systematically usurping all
sacred vestiges of Islam and Muslims from The Holy Land?
Interestingly, the Bahais of Iran's temple, the Bahai Gardens, and
its “World Headquarters” are also located in Israel. Why
such benevolence to fringe Muslim sects who so generously
advocated peace with the British empire's la mission
civilisatrice? The linkage of the Ahmadiyya Movement to the
Zionist project is unequivocally manifest. It is also a categorical
fact that Allama Iqbal played a most auspicious role for the British
empire's divide and conquer strategy on the new evolving grand
chessboard full of warring nation-states carved out of former
empires: categorical omission on the Jews' side to support their
dystopia, and categorical commission on the
Muslims' side to father their dystopia.

“Sir”
Allama Iqbal being baptized an Ahmadi in an
Ahmadi sympathetic home, although a painful issue for many zealot
Muslims to reconcile with, is pertinent only in so
far as it is a coherent explanation of empirical facts which
all can see. None of the facts discussed here are classified
as state-secret of any nation. What Iqbal's inner-most religious
beliefs may have been or how he may have evolved spiritually, was
really his own private affair. People of many religions, as well as
no religion, have equally served empire in all times as its useful
idiots, mercenaries and Superman! “Sir” Allama Iqbal, the
evidence betrays, and as persuasively argued here, was manifestly
among the Superman.

Caption
The Mahmood Mosque in Kababir, Haifa, Israel was built by Ahmadiyya
Muslim community in the late 1970s. Kababir is a mixed neighborhood
of Ahmadi Muslim Arabs and Jews on Mount Carmel in Haifa. When
established in 1928, the majority of the town's residents were part
of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The first Ahmadiyya Muslim
Missionary from India in Israel was Jalaluddin Shams. (Image and text
source Wikipedia)

Analyzing
Iqbal and Ahmadiyyat in his last years

A
second revealing Ahmadi document lends new insights into “Sir”
Allama Iqbal's “fickle mindedness” to easily go with the
political flow when it was necessary to do so, titled: Sir
Muhammad Iqbal's Statement re The Qadianis, by Maulana
Muhammad Ali. It is a rebuttal written by this famous late Ahmadi
scholar who is also deemed to be the first Muslim English translator
of the Holy Qur'an to offer a fair and well-respected translation to
the English speaking world (MMA
1917),
to “Sir” Allama Iqbal after the lauded poet-philosopher
had evidently turned volt face on his pledge of acceptance of the
Ahmadiyyat faith towards the latter part of his life and belatedly
condemned the Qadiani Ahmadis “kafir” circa 1935. Why had
Iqbal waited so long to issue his condemnation? Download pdfhttp://aaiil.org/text/books/mali/sirmuhammadiqbalsstatementsqadianis/sirmuhammadiqbalsstatementsqadianis.pdf
.

This
document shockingly reveals that “Sir” Allama Iqbal
invited “the British Government to interfere in the
religious controversy between the Qadianis and the orthodox to help
the majority against an insignificant minority,”.

The
“shocking” thing here, once again putting the exclamation
in double quotes to emphasize it, is that “Sir” Allama
Iqbal is seen inviting the British empire's intervention in
supposedly a purely religious matter among the Muslim sects. The
knight of the British empire is gratuitously calling upon his
Christian masters as the colonizing state of India to legally deem
the Qadianis, even if deemed a dubious Muslim sect by the pious
keepers of the faith, officially “kafir”!

“Sir”
Allama Iqbal's own words, written as a Postscript in clarification of
his own statements to which presumably Maulana Muhammad Ali was
responding, leave no room for doubt that Iqbal is calling upon the
British empire, the “rulers” of India, to declare the
Qadianis non-Muslim:

“I
understand that this statement has caused some misunderstanding in
some quarters. It is thought that I have made a subtle suggestion to
the Government to suppress the Qadiani movement by force. Nothing of
the kind. I have made it clear that the policy of non-interference in
religion is the only policy which can be adopted by the rulers of
India. No other policy is possible. I confess, however, that to my
mind this policy is harmful to the interests of religious
communities; but there is no escape from it and those who suffer will
have to safeguard their interests by suitable means. The
best course for the rulers of India is, in my opinion, to declare the
Qadianis a separate community. This will be perfectly
consistent with the policy of the Qadianis themselves, and
the Indian Muslim will tolerate them just as he tolerates other
religions.” Qadianis and Orthodox Muslims,
Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, circa 1935 (source:
http://www.koranselskab.dk/profiler/iqbal/qadianis.htm
)

This
document written by the famous and most respected translator of the
Holy Qur'an, and “Sir” Allama Iqbal's own words, lend
compelling evidence to the idea that the rising takfiri
trend in Pakistan today has a most distinguished intellectual
pedigree in the Indian sub-continent that goes back at least to the
Ahrar of the 1930s! See: Memo:
The 'Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy' of 1953 and Shia Killings today in
2013.
And given that the beleaguered Shia Muslims
of Pakistan today rush to proclaim “Sir” Allama Iqbal as
their own greatest contributor to mankind
in the twentieth century, they may have this same great benefactor to
thank for the rabid state-sponsored “takfirism”
that has now engulfed Pakistan with the state officially adjudicating
in 1974, and subsequently continually “tickling”, the
specious doctrinal question who is Muslim and who isn't. That sword
is now hanging over the Shia minority of Pakistan themselves. See:
What
Role did Shias Play in Condemning Qadianis to Kafirdom in Cahoots
with Sunni Scholars in 1974?.
Furthermore, as evidence of the veracity of the first half of the
preceding statement, that the Shia pulpit too unabashedly proclaims
“Sir” Allama Iqbal as the “alambardar”
(flag-bearer) of “deen-e-Shabbiri”
(the deen as exemplified by Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet
of Islam, at Karbala), the Qom (Iran) trained fiery Shia pontiff of
Pakistan, Syed Jawad Naqvi of Lahore, is oft heard declaring this
tall knight of the British empire to be the first and foremost
intellectual exponent of “valih-e-faqih” (even before the
late Ayatollah Khomeini had borrowed Plato's 2500 year old
“philosopher-king” and cleverly re-flavored it to give it
revelatory underpinnings under the banner of “revolutionary
Islam”)! See The
Rise of Revolutionary Islam in Pakistan – A Report on Behavior
Control.

To
even ask such a loaded religious doctrinal question who is a Muslim
and who isn't, never mind to try to answer it, only benefits the
cultivation of divide and conquer!

The
fact as per this document that Allama Iqbal even participated in that
Machiavellian question like any ordinary mullah of the day (and of
today), something which even puzzled Maulana Mohammad Ali as is
visible from his rebuttal, is a most disturbing fact. The brightest
Allama of the British empire is a European trained intellectual
philosopher in the Age of post enlightenment. He is not only
academically intimate with Hegel and Nietzsche, Spinoza
and Will Durant, but is also plugged in
politically as the member of Round Table representing Muslim
political interests. Even a quick peruse of his long essay titled:
“The Muslim Attitude towards the Ahmadiyya Movement”,
written in response to Pandit JawaharLalNehru inquiring into the Muslim attitudes
towards the Ahmadis, trivially shows the
reader that “Sir” Allama Iqbal is a sophisticated and
intellectually savvy scholar to say the least. Read his essay which
is even used today by both the feeble of mind and the shrewd
Machiavelli to lend an intellectual veneer to the marginalization
of Ahmadis and Qadianis as non Muslims :
http://www.koranselskab.dk/profiler/iqbal/ahmadiyya.htm
.

Therefore,
once again, is it gross impertinence to ask whether the shinning
knight of the British empire is so politically naïve as to not
realize that the foolish doctrinal question of trying to settle who
is a Muslim and who isn't – and especially under a politically
charged imperial umbrella that harkens to the partition of the
sectarianly divisive Indian sub-continent – only begs open an
endless Pandora's box? That pursuing that question can never achieve
anything productive, or in the national interest, except the
inevitable political disenfranchisement of the minority public thus
targeted, and for whom, it is safe to presume, their practice of
religion is often their native belief system of birth for which they
will willingly live and die in the extremes like any self-respecting
people? Does it take a rocket scientist to know that only
“revolutionary times” will be the natural harvest
of fueling that volatile inferno? This is entirely self-evident.

We
can see the truth of this observation even today. It is now almost
trivial to seed, germinate, cultivate and harvest theological
differences among Muslims based on that exact same doctrinal question
for pushing any political agenda no differently than how the British
empire cultivated the Hegelian Dialectic of “peaceful Islam”
to encourage the Muslims of the day to refrain from challenging its
sovereign authority over them as an integral part of their own
religion Islam. Compare with today's Hegelian Dialectic of “moderate
Islam” as the new “peaceful Islam” du jour of
Tahir-ul Qadri and Daniel Pipes et. al. It also refrains from
questioning the empire's narratives of the day, narratives that aid
and abet its latter day “imperial mobilization” agendas.
And juxtapose it against both of its antithesis, “militant
Islam” based on Sunni derived orthodoxy and “revolutionary
Islam” based on Shia derived orthodoxy. All these opposites and
their exponents naturally clashing with each other and with all
others on the grand chessboard of today, inevitably leads to
percolating “revolutionary times” all along the
“arc of crisis” in the “global zone of
percolating violence”. Just as it was self-servingly
presaged by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor
to President Jimmy Carter (1976-1980).

The
violence, both externally directed, and internecine,
is naturally seeded in a self-fulfilling prophecy because one side
terrorizes while the other side defends itself, and the third party
sprinkles the “peaceful” reform panacea to the mix to add
to the chaos and confusion of the “revolutionary times”.
The fact is that they all principally serve the same interests, to
lend natural justification for whatever a priori political agenda
that needed to be foisted upon the public, to be automatically
achieved in the guise of the officialdom pursuing legitimate
reactions to these manufactured “revolutionary times”.
See Hegelian
Dialectic – What is it?
if you are unfamiliar with journeying with the uber
sophisticated Machiavelli on the road to “imperial
mobilization”.

These
two document finds are what they are. Please read them carefully in
the light of what is examined here, and make up your own damn mind of
why and how did “Sir” Allama Iqbal come to adopt
Ahmadiyyat and its pragmatic theosophy of not only not opposing the
British empire as the rulers of the sub-continent, but working
cooperatively with all its imperial agendas. All notable Ahmadis,
without exception, as far as I am aware, pragmatically cooperated
with the discourse boundaries and the political directions bequeathed
by the British empire to the sub-continent. The factual record of the
actual acts and deeds of our noble Superman, and of the
concomitant rewards so reaped from the British empire, from the
unknown rags of Sialkot to the coveted knighthood of empire, reflects
that very Ahmadiyyat theosophy of pragmaticism despite all his moral
sermonizing of the virtuous marde-momin! Oscar Wilde most
straightforwardly summarized this state of affairs in The Picture
of Dorian Gray:“And
what sort of lives do these people, who pose as being moral, lead
themselves? My dear fellow, you forget that we are in the native land
of the hypocrite.”

The
purpose of the rehearsal of this sacred
history and its non conformist analysis is not so that the reader may
be intellectually entertained so to speak, and shout their applause
when they approve or attempt to denigrate the author when they find
the material unpleasant --- as has evidently been the case since the
publication of Sacred Cow: Allama Iqbal - marde-momin or
superman? in December 2012. But
that the reader experiencing cognitive dissonance upon
examining their own history from a different angle on the broader
canvas of the grand chessboard, may shrewdly come to comprehend the
sophisticated methods of the devil and how it seduces the “likkha
parrha jahils” just as easily as the dimwitted. While it may
have become a well worn cliché, it is surely necessary to
reiterate it again to remind the reader who is already squirming in
discomfort, that the purpose of
dispassionately studying the past with some emotional detachment is
so that one can effectively prepare to counter the sophisticated
devil in one's own times. The purpose of dispassionately
studying the present, in spite of being so close in time to
the events one is living through that often the perspectives of even
the finest scholars can get naturally distorted due to both emotional
attachment and incompleteness of truthful information,
is so that one can come to comprehend the past. For history,
especially dystopic history, often repeats itself. What
might appear as an insoluble puzzle of history can at times easily be
unraveled by dispassionately looking at similar events and attitudes
of the present. And what might be sowing confusion in the present is
easily comprehended by forensicallyexamining the past away from the narratives
of power and its officialdom. See the report: Behavior
Control by The Mighty Wurlitzer
to fathom how the public mind is Machiavellianly made in the present
by the control of the narrative. It was made in
the same way in the past with similar Machiavellian forces in play.
George Orwell, among all the perceptive essayist of modernity,
summed it the most elegantly: “Those
who control the past control the future, those who control the
present control the past”!

As
the final word, the Ahmadis today, born and socialized into their
core belief system no differently than any other people, including
the Shias and the Sunnis in their myriad Muslim sects, cannot be
denied their political rights in Pakistan and continued to be
marginalized as “non Muslim”. That infernal question of
who is a Muslim and who isn't in the sectarianly infested Muslim
polity is only the devil's gambit to sow discord among a foolish
people. When a purely theological and academic matter that is best
relegated to intellectual discourses in mullah seminaries among the
idle caste posing as the self-appointed guardians of faith, is cast
in political overtones, then those participating in it can only be
the devil's apprentice. Separating propaganda from religious dogma
when the two have deliberately been intertwined requires expending
matching intellectual energy to confront the villainy, not state
sponsored and mob tyranny. This analysis accordingly has separated
the propaganda of imperial mobilization from the right to bear any
religion or belief. A people are entitled to believe whatever they
feel inclined to believe --- the freedom to believe, to think one's
own thoughts, without coercion and manipulation, is an inalienable
right even more fundamental than the freedom to express those beliefs
and thoughts, and for those expressions to be permitted to be heard
by others in respectability. Merely being free to shout idiotically
in a bullhorn in the Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park is poking
fun at the very concept of inalienable rights itself. No political
right in any fair society and civilization may be circumscribed or
marginalized by the exercise of these inalienable rights, except when
straight-jacketed in absolute tyranny in a slave-state.

If
any facts used here are deemed to be in error, the author would
appreciate receiving a citation to published reference that might
indicate otherwise.